Re: a quick question

[chuck <chuck@Yerkes.com>]

Static HTML?  Run a single server and a bunch of SQUID frontends
in accelerator mode and you'll fly.

BSDi works fine for you and you want that?  It'll work.
Want OpenBSD?  It too will work.

Heavy CGI usage often 'likes' multiple processors - they
just scale better.  Alternatives include multiple machines
and a Local Director type thing (or round robin DNS).

FreeBSD will out scale OpenBSD if only through SMP.  It will
not outsecure it.

Unsecure CGI will be a problem on ANY machine.  The OS might
be secure, but the apps may not.  This is a concern.


Yeah, BSDi (and most Unixes) will beat the pants off of NT.
I had a P/90 with 16MB/RAM that was, in the early stages of
startup, running Netatalk for 5 Macs, 2 dialups, apache 0.8
for 20 (low volume) web sites and, occasionally X Windows
for me.  It didn't ROCK with X Windows running, but it
ran better than the Sun IPX that was the firewall.

We sold that machine off at some point and the guy put NT
and OReilly's web server on.  He was upset that we 'took the
RAM out' when we sold it.  Had a tough time believing that
it could function with 16MB/RAM.  He threw in 64 (lots, then)
and got one web site running on it.

Maybe Windows NT5^H^H^H1900^H^H^H^H2000 will be better :)


Quoting Andrew Falanga (afalanga@syracusenetworks.com):
> Hi,
> 
> I've posted a few questions on the misc list, but this question I
> believe is more suited to this list.  In response to one of my
> questions, one person (I forget names now) mentioned that for smaller
> internet web site hosting openbsd was great.  If I was looking at a
> larger platform, then go with NetBSD.  What I'm wondering is, what is
> meant by "smaller?"  What is too much for OpenBSD, that I should
> consider NetBSD?
> 
> The reason for this question is, I'm investigating alternative OSes to
> NT for www site hosting.  I have had previous experience with BSDi, the
> commercial product, and really liked it.  It ran very cleanly.  In fact,
> it routinely (not really, more like it always), out-performed the NT box
> that was the dial-in server.  The NT box was a dual P166 (when the 166
> chip was the fastest) w/80+ m of RAM.  The Unix box, a humble P60 with
> 32m of RAM.
> 
> Back to what I'm asking, I'm really not looking at hosting extremely
> high volume hits.  It's not like I'm going to be mirroring tucows.com or
> something.  The company I work for is attempting to diversify in to web
> site hosting, no dial-in lines.  I really would like to security of
> OpenBSD, and want to know if it has what it takes.
> 
> Andrew Falanga
>